TB8-19309

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-19309 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 13, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Robert Bebbington Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Idowu Ohioze Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant), citizen of Ethiopia, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated May 29, 2018, rejecting her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant has submitted new evidence with the appeal as referred to in paragraph 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1 and she does not request an oral hearing be held pursuant to paragraph 110(6) of the IRPA. DETERMINATION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). BACKGROUND [2] The Appellant alleges in her Basis of Claim form (BOC)2 that she fears political persecution due to her political activities and her Oromo ethnicity. New Evidence [3] The Appellant submitted a document3 as proposed new evidence that she submits was not available to her at the time of the RPD hearing. She further submits that she was unable to find a translator who could prepare a translated copy of the document for her refugee hearing. [4] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that an Appellant may only present evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that they could not reasonably have been expected4 in the circumstances, to have presented at the time of the rejection. In addition, if the new evidence meets one of the explicit legislative factors in subsection 110(4), then the second step of the analysis is for the RAD to apply the adapted Raza factors endorsed in Singh.5 In Singh, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the RAD should assess the admissibility of the new evidence for its credibility, relevance and newness. [5] The Appellant provided a copy of a Facebook post dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. The Appellant argues that she could not locate a translator and provide the document at her hearing before the RPD. The RAD has reviewed the audio recording of the hearing and notes the Appellant was confronted by the RPD about the lack of documents to support her allegations of persecution in Ethiopia. The Appellant initially testified that she had no additional supporting documents. She later amended her statements to indicate that she had evidence but no hard copies of the evidence, but provided no further explanation. [6] The RAD has considered that the Appellant was unrepresented at her RPD hearing and may have been unfamiliar with the fact that she could have requested to disclose additional evidence post-hearing. The RAD finds the evidence is credible and relevant. The evidence is admitted under the provision that it was not reasonably available at the time of her hearing before the RPD. ORAL HEARING [7] The RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence - referred to in subsection 110(3) of the IRPA, that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim.6 [8] The Appellant submits that this document is proof of her political involvement in Ethiopia. The RAD, upon review of the Facebook post, finds that it is a political comment, but it provides no evidence of any involvement in political activities or specific actions that may cause the government to take notice of the Appellant. The RAD finds the statements are generalized and contain no information that is not readily available from various media sources. [9] The RAD notes that although new evidence has been admitted in this appeal it must proceed without a hearing. The RAD finds it can place little evidentiary weight on the document as it provides insufficient persuasive evidence to support the Appellant's allegation that she was involved in the political scene in Ethiopia. Accordingly, the evidence lacks the materiality to justify either allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim, and, as such, it does not meet the requirements of 110(6) of the IRPA. Each of the requirements in 110(6)(a) through (c) have to be met, and in this case the requirement in 110(6)(a and b) is not met. As such, the RAD has no discretion to hold a hearing. Uncontested Findings [10] The RAD notes the RPD has made a series of findings in the claim for refugee protection that have not been contested in this appeal. These include: * The police letter7 submitted as support for her claim was found to be unreliable. It was assigned little evidentiary weight due to inconsistencies between the report and her BOC narrative as well as her testimony. * The Appellant's subjective fear was undermined by inconsistent testimony as well as the unreliability of the police report. The RPD found there was a significant delay in advancing her claim for refugee protection. * The Appellant provided insufficient persuasive evidence of well-founded fear of persecution due to her political opinion or Oromo ethnicity. * The Appellant provided inconsistent testimony when compared to the employment record detailed in her immigration documents.8 When considered against the country documentary evidence9 the Appellant advanced insufficient evidence to confirm that she has faced cumulative discrimination in her employment that would be considered persistent and repetitive. * Given the credibility issues noted in the Appellant's claim she has not established a nexus to a Convention ground in her particular circumstances or a sufficient connection to the objective evidence in the NDP. [11] The RAD has reviewed the record as well as the audio recording of the hearing. The RAD agrees with the RPD that the Appellant's testimony with regard to her political activities in Ethiopia or persecution because of her Oromo ethnicity is not credible. The RAD further finds that the Appellant has not acted as a credible witness in her claim for refugee protection. The RAD has conducted its own assessment of the record and finds that there is no perceptible error in the RPD findings. [12] The RAD notes that the Appellant is represented by counsel in her appeal before the RAD. The RAD rules are clear that the Appellant has a responsibility to include full and detailed submissions regarding the errors that are the grounds of the appeal in the memorandum. The appeal process is to be party driven. As stated by Mr. Justice LeBlanc in Dhillon:10 It is not the RAD's function to supplement the weaknesses of an appeal before it, or, for that matter, of the refugee protection claim presented in the first place. It is also not its role to come up with new ideas that might assist appellants in succeeding with their appeal and, ultimately, their refugee claim. [13] The RAD notes the Appellant has not advanced any additional arguments in her appeal beyond that submitted with her new evidence. The RAD addressed the Appellant's Facebook post submitted as new evidence previously. The RAD finds this evidence is not sufficiently persuasive to confirm the Appellant's political identity or activities in Ethiopia in light of the multiple uncontested credibility findings in this appeal. The RAD finds that when it weighs the multiple credibility concerns in this appeal, the Appellant has not established a nexus to a Convention ground or a sufficient connection to the objective evidence in the NDP. CONCLUSION [14] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). (signed) "Robert Bebbington" Robert Bebbington January 13, 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 2 2 RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, pp.7-20 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp.17-21 4 In the French version of the IRPA, this phrase is instead the equivalent of "normally have been expected;" see Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6711-13), Gagné, October 28, 2014, 2014 FC 1022, Paragraph 51. 5 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385, cited in M.C.I. v. Singh, Parminder (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96, Paragraph 64. 6 S.110(6), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27. [IRPA] 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 6,pp.112-114 8Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 1, p.32 9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NOP). Ethiopia, April 30. 2018. Items 2.1 and 4.13 Response to Information Request (RIR) ETH105565.E 10 Dhillon, Jatinder Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5156-14), LeBlanc, March 13, 2015, 2015 FC 321, para 20. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-19309 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français